The most obvious thing about the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a Louisiana law that would have shuttered two of the state’s three remaining abortion clinics is that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who stopped that from happening. Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices to deliver a 5-4 majority that maintains the status quo, for now, and keeps the clinics open.

What is perhaps less obvious, at least at first glance, is the level of intellectual dishonesty baked into a four-page dissent penned by the court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

When Judges Defy the Supreme Court
The chief justice faces a time of great testing, both of himself and of the institution he heads, as the lower courts move rapidly even to his right.
Linda Greenhouse

By Linda Greenhouse, Contributing Opinion Writer
Feb. 14, 2019

No, I wasn’t surprised last week, as most people apparently were, when Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding fifth vote to preserve access to abortion in Louisiana for at least a little while longer. In fact, I had predicted it (and I have witnesses).

Why? Not because I think the chief justice has developed a soft spot in his heart for the right to abortion. He has not. Not because he wants to minimize the Supreme Court’s role as a combatant in the culture wars. I think he does, but that’s not the point.

Rather, circumstances compelled the chief justice to stand up to a stunning act of judicial defiance.

There are about 4.6 million people in Louisiana. Guess how many abortion clinics there are? Three. There are just three. Which I suppose is actually quite a lot when you consider that a number of American states have only one.

On Thursday Louisiana narrowly avoided becoming a new member of the one-clinic club. The US supreme court voted 5-4 to block a Louisiana law that would have dramatically reduced access to legal abortions in the state. Opponents of the law said it would have meant only one doctor would have been eligible to perform abortions in the entire state.

As the Supreme Court's Jan. 22 Roe v. Wade decision turns 46 years old, state legislators across the country are planning more anti-abortion laws. Although supporters of these restrictions may claim that they are medically prudent, designed to protect patient health, the reality is they have no scientific basis.

One of the many types of abortion restrictions spreading across the country is a requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital or that clinics have transfer agreements with a local hospital. Due to administrative barriers or anti-abortion sentiment, abortion facilities and clinicians often can’t get these admitting privileges. That leads to clinic closures, forcing women to leave the state to obtain an abortion and creating abortion deserts.